Esther 6:6, Question 4. Why does the verse stress that Haman spoke “in his heart?”

  • The Ibn Ezra quotes the opinion in the Talmud (Megillah 15b) of Rebbe Eliezer that the verse’s use of the phrase “in his heart” is proof that Megillas Esther was written with Ruach HaKodesh, Divine Inspiration, (see Introduction). After all, if Haman said something to himself, how did the authors of this book know what he was thinking privately?
  • The Sfas Emes, however, asks why this would prove that the entire book is written with Divine Inspiration. It should only prove that its authors, Esther and Mordechai, had Divine Inspiration. He answers that people with Ruach HaKodesh would not have written that they have it in such an obvious way. They would not show it off.
  • A story is told of the Rubshitzer Rav that somebody came to visit him for a bracha, but arrived at a time at which the Rav did not accept visitors. The visitor told the attending gabbai, who happened to be the Rav’s son, that he was a very important person. After the gabbai persisted in explaining that this was not the time for the Rav to receive visitors, this guest asked for a glass of water. When the gabbai gave him the water, the man said he could not drink from the cup because he could tell that it had not yet be toveled (submerged) in a mikvah since he could feel the Name of H-Shem on it. Indeed, upon investigation, the Rav’s son learned that the cup he had given the man came from a box of vessels awaiting mikvah immersion. Impressed with the man’s obvious holiness, he rushed him in to see his father, the Rubshitzer Rav. After the visit, the Rav asked the gabbai why he allowed the guest at a time when the Rav did not see visitors. His son told him then what had transpired earlier, and concluded, “I pray that one day, I am on the level to see if a cup has been toveled merely by holding it.” The Rav responded, “When you become that great, I pray you are the type of person who will not tell that to the person who gave you the glass.”
  • The Midrash (Esther Rabba 10:3) writes that evil people are controlled by their hearts, and brings several proofs from TaNaCh of this. Righteous people, on the contrary, are in control of their hearts.
  • Rebbetzin Heller explains that righteous people are are rational, and evil people are emotional. The Maharal adds that an evil person’s whole being is focused on the temporary, terrestrial world, whereas the righteous are focused on the permanent, the holy – not controlled by the momentary whims and passions of their hearts.
  • Parenthetically, it is amazing to note that Haman who had arrived with the plan to kill Mordechai, could switch gears without missing a beat, from murder to honoring himself. Perhaps this is because both come from the same negative inclination/characteristic.
Advertisements

Esther 6:1, Question 4. Why does the verse use the passive verb “nikra’im” (were read) instead of the active “koreem” (“read”)?

  • The Talmud (Megillah 15b) writes that the verse uses the passive form of the verb (“were read”) because the pages of the book read themselves, since the king’s servant did not want to.
  • The Maharal explains that the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 545, and see Ezra 4:8 with Rashi there) writes that the palace scribe was one of Haman’s sons. Therefore, explains the Maharal, since he changed all references to Mordechai to say Haman, this was only true in the public book. In the private book, the king would notice the obvious inconsistencies, and would therefore have more reason to suspect Haman of conspiring against him.
  • Targum Sheini writes that the scribe did not erase Mordechai’s name, but merely skipped over his name. Therefore, the angel Gavriel turned the pages to the missing text, and the pages read themselves.
  • R’ Yehonason Eibshutz asks why such a miracle was necessary. He answers that the Talmud (Shabbos 88a) writes that the Jews accepted the Torah at Har Sinai with the words “naaseh v’nishmah” (“we will do and we will listen”). After this, H-Shem lifted a mountain over them, and threatened to drop it over them if they would not accept the Torah. What was the reason for this if they had just done exactly that? Tosfos answers that the Jews accepted the Written Torah with complete enthusiasm, but not the Oral Torah. They re-accepted the Torah in the conclusion of Megillas Esther, when the verse (Esther 9:27) writes “kimu v’kiblu” (“they took and they accepted”). It became clear to the Jews that their downfall was caused in the beginning of the Purim story, where they ignored the words of the great leader, Mordechai. For this reason, these words which were not written down were given orally, mida kineged mida. Perhaps it is for this reason that this miracle happened on the second night of the Pesach holiday, since its observance is totally rabbinic.
  • As a proof of this phenomenon, the Rokeach points out that the words “hayamim viyihyu nikarim” (“days [Chronicles]. And they were read”) (5+10+40+10+40+6+10+5+10+6+50+100+200+1+10+40=543) have the same gematria as lomed kee hayu nikrayim me’atzmam (“we learn that they read themselves”) (30+40+4+20+10+5+10+6+50+100+200+1+10+40+40+70+90+40+40=806).
  • R’ Yitzchak Hutner writes that we can learn a fundamental philosophical rule from this verse. Namely, in life, we do not really accomplish anything; H-Shem just makes it look to us as if we do things. As a proof, he quotes the phrase (Vayikra 11:38) “kee yiton” (“if he placed”), which the Talmud (Bava Metzia 22b) says could be pronounced “kee yutan” (“if it was placed”) in the passive voice because despite a person’s intent to do something, the final act is completed only through H-Shem. We are all vessels, and H-Shem is the real Doer in this world.

Esther 6:1, Question 2. Why does the verse describe the king’s sleep as “shaken?”

  • Me’am Loez writes that this was the first time Achashverosh felt anything like insomnia, and he was therefore greatly concerned. Since this strange, out of the ordinary event transpires in this verse, perhaps this is the reason for the custom (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 690:15, Mishnah Berurah 690:52) to read this verse in a unique tune1.
  • The Midrash writes that Achashverosh had trouble sleeping because he was afraid Haman would try to kill him.
  • R’ Rephael Shapiro of Volozhin wonders why the crux of the Purim miracle hangs on this seeming lie; after all, Haman was not planning on killing the king at this point. He answers that Achashverosh saw in his dream that Haman wanted to kill Esther’s husband. What he did not know was that Esther’s actual husband was not Achashverosh, but Mordechai.
  • Since every reference to the “king” is really a reference to the King of Kings – H-Shem – the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 10:1) continues that H-Shem was “awakened” from His throne of Glory. How could H-Shem, who neither sleeps nor slumbers (Tehillim 121:4) have been sleeping? The Midrash explains that H-Shem can be said to be “sleeping” when the Jews are not living up to the standard set for them, as it says elsewhere in Tehillim (78:65). Torah Temimah explains that H-Shem ignores our needs sometimes, and only prayer and repentance can “awaken” Him.
  • The Talmud (Megillah 15b) cites an argument about which king’s sleep was disturbed. The first opinion says it was H-Shem’s “sleep.” The second opinion is that the sleep of both the upper world and the lower world was disturbed. The third opinion is that it was Achashverosh’s sleep, and that it was due to his concern over the nature of the relationship between Esther and Haman, as she had intended by inviting Haman to her feast (see below). Achashverosh thus becomes concerned that nobody seems to be saving him.
  • Interestingly, Rashi uncharacteristically quotes both the miraculous and natural interpretations of this verse. R’ Avigdor Bonchek writes that Rashi does so to emphasize that the main theme of Megillas Esther is that the true, miraculous nature of things is constantly concealed within seemingly everyday events. Maharal points out that this can be seen in the verse’s choice of calling Him/him “king” without mentioning Achashverosh’s name. If the verse is discussing H-Shem, it is fitting to call Him King. If the verse is discussing Achashverosh, it must be that he was concerned about kingly, political affairs.
  • Furthermore, Maharsha notes that any instant in TaNaCh in which someone’s sleep is disturbed, the next verse explains the reason. For example, when Yaakov had a dream about the ladder, the next verse (Bireishis 28:10) explains why. Also, when Pharoah had his prophetic, confusing dreams about cows, the next verse (Bireishis 41:1) explains the reason. This verse’s lack of explanation leads one to conclude that something else is going on – namely, H-Shem’s “sleep” is also being “disturbed.”
  • Based on the fact that the root of “nadidah” (“shaking”) is “nada,” R’ Mendel Weinbach points out that the verse’s use of two letter daleds indicates that there were two disturbances – one in the Heavens and one on Earth. The Midrash Abba Gurion writes that the angel, Gavriel, kept Achashverosh awake telling him, “do good for the one who did good to you.”
  • The Ben Ish Chai writes that “nadidah” can be read as “nadad Hey,” or “H-Shem Stirred.” He writes it can also be read as “fifty (gematria of the letter nun) dadah.” Since “dadah” can be seen as the root of “edadeim” (“movement”) in Tehillim (42:5), Ben Ish Chai writes that fifty moved Achashverosh. Specifically, he quotes the Ari Z”l that the first verse in Shema contains twenty-five letters. Since we typically say Shema twice every evening and twice every morning, these fifty letters (twenty-five letters repeated) Mordechai was saying came to protect Mordechai. These fifty letters saved Mordechai from the fifty amos of the gallows Haman prepared, zeh l’umas zeh.

1 The classically given answer for this custom is because this verse is the one in which there is a turnabout – when obviously good things are in store for the Jews.

Esther 5:13, Question 2. How do Mordechai’s actions take away from Haman’s list of honors?

  • The M’nos HaLevi writes that the wicked are simply never satisfied.
  • The Talmud (Megillah 15b) says Haman was called a slave who sold himself for bread, referring to the famous Midrash the Haman sold himself into slavery to Mordechai when the two of them were generals and the supplies with which the king entrusted Haman ran out.
  • How do Mordechai’s actions take away from Haman’s list of honors? Rashi writes that Haman forgot about his honor whenever he saw Mordechai. R’ Dovid Feinstein writes that this occurs naturally to most people when we are insulted.
  • The Malbim, consistent in his view, Haman is saying that it is not worthy of his prestige to kill Mordechai.
  • In Sichos Mussar, Rav Chaim Shmulevitz writes that physical things are attainable. Honor, however, is not real, is not physical, and is completely in one’s perspective and imagination. Since it is not real, honor can never be realized.
  • The Ginzei HaMelech brings from the Ne’os Desheh that the last letters of “zeh einenu shava lee” (“this is not worth anything for me”) spell out H-Shem’s Name backwards. According to the Zohar (and quoted by Rabbeinu Bachya in his commentary to Bamidbar), any time the Torah contains H-Shem’s Name backwards, it means He is upset. The Ginzei HaMelech explains that ingratitude (like the kind that Haman is showing here) always angers H-Shem.
  • The Talmud (Chulin 139b) asks where Haman can be found in the Torah. It responds by quoting the verse in Bereishis (3:11), “hamin ha’eitz” (“from the tree”). R’ Aaron Kotler asks, what is the Talmud really asking; after all, Haman in found in Megillas Esther, every time we shout, “boo!” He explains that the Talmud is asking where Haman’s characteristic of ingratitude is in the Torah. Adam, after being given everything in the paradise known as Gan Eden, ends up disregarding his only restriction by eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That lack of appreciation is Haman in the Torah.

Esther 5:13, Question 1. To what does “this” refer?

יג וְכָלזֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שׁוֶֹה לִי בְּכָלעֵת אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי רֹאֶה אֶתמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ

13. “And all of this is not worth anything for me all the time that I see Mordechai the Yehudi sitting in the gate of the king.”

  • As Rashi notes (Shemos 15:2), whenever a verse in TaNaCh uses the pronoun “zeh” (“this”), it refers to an object to which one could physically point. Therefore, the Talmud (Megillah 15b) teaches that Haman had tattooed symbols of his accomplishments onto his heart. He pointed at this tattoo when he was saying this.
  • The Beis Yaakov quotes that the Likutim MiPardes that the mispar katan (see note 24 above) of Mordechai (4+2+4+2+1=13) and Esther (1+6+4+2=13) together is 26. Similarly, the mispar katan of Haman (5+4+5=14) and Zeresh (7+2+3=12) is also 26. Therefore, Haman, consistently concerned with numerology and superstition, was telling his wife that she, whose mispar katan is equal to that of zeh (7+5=12), was not up to the mispar katan value of Mordechai, and thus not up to the challenge of defeating him.

Esther 5:11, Question 2. Why does the verse not mention the number of Haman’s sons?

  • R’ Dovid Feinstein writes that Haman mentions his sons because a Jewish owner of a slave also owns his slave’s sons (Shemos 23:12). Haman was, in effect, saying that since he was Mordechai’s slave, his many sons belonged to Mordechai, as well.

  • The Talmud (Megillah 15b) asks how many sons Haman actually had. The Talmud suggests 30, 70, 208, or even 214.

  • The Maharsha explains that the word rov (“many”), implies more than the ten sons Megillas Esther will itself name.

  • The Torah Temimah points out that the Talmud (Pesachim 64b) defines “many” as thirty people.

  • The Ben Ish Chai is troubled by the large number of children with which the Talmud credits Haman. He explains that these sons were illegitimate offspring Haman sired from the wives of his officers. This large-scale betrayal of his officers’ trust may indicate why Haman was so unpopular, even in court.

Esther 5:5, Question 3. Why does the verse use the singular form of going (vayavo) instead of the plural (vayavo’u)?

  • The M’nos HaLevi writes that Esther used the singular form of the verb (vayavo) instead of the plural (vayavo’u) because she wanted to evoke the king’s jealousy by equating him with another man, Haman. This fits with the Talmud’s (Megillah 15b) statement that Esther’s goal in inviting Haman was to produce such a jealousy.